Like it really fucking matters who we're in favor of. This will all be old news by the time any of us gets to vote.

hhhmmmmm
gravil or obama?

I would like Edwards but do not see him getting the nomination even now. Obama is going to win NH and it is just a matter of the margin he carrys it. Edwards may win South Carolina with Obama gettign second.....

Needless to say at least Hillary will not be in the White House. We get to move on....

But it has been awhile since America was lead by a woman, the last was Queen Anne and before that Elizabeth I. And the English chicks did not do a bad job with us colonialists.

Too bad that Hillary is breaking apart on national TV. VERY unflattering way to have your presidential hopes die out.

O-bysmal

@4 It's not to late for Sen. Pelosi to become president after Bush and Cheney get impeached and shipped to The Hague. :)

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooo

@6, I had hopes of that about a year ago. Then she showed no back bone.

Wasn't cindy sheehan going to run against Pelosi in the next election unless she impeached Bush/Cheney. Haven't heard anything about that recently, is it still on?

For the first time ever in my voting life, I think all three of the Democratic primary leaders would make both excellent presidents and good campaigners.

Clinton convinced me she'd make a fantastic Senate majority leader--vastly better than Harry Reid, better than Obama could ever hope to be and perhaps one of the best ever.

She embodies an optimal mix of ruthlessness, political savvy, intelligence and a dash of sensible compromise. Pair a senate led by her with a democratic president and you have a great mix to really accomplish wonderful things.

In a strange way, Hillary Clinton is making the case for renewed power and interest in the congress. Through the ugliness of the Bush unitary executive era, I think we've lost some of the sense that congress is meant to be an equal power, not a vestigial limb.

@10, Interesting point about Hillary and a similar argument was stated in Harpers about 18 months ago. It pushed that perhaps Hillary would be better off staying in the Senate and doing the dealing that goes on in the Senate. Also, she has been pretty good at it and as a result her deals and voting record can be used against her in a general election campaign for the White House. Obama has not been there long enough (similar in vain to JKF) so he is not "tainted" by the dealings in the Senate.

I'm surprised by how much I'm rooting for Hillary. However, she seems to make the best case for her ability to lead the country back to some semblance of sanity. The argument that she has the policies and the savoir faire to bring about change is convincing, and more importantly, specific.

I have to say, I find Obama a bit unnerving. His generalities about hope and change seem empty and quasi-religious (that is, hope or belief without substantiation). Whenever anyone talks vaguely about promises of hope or unity, without a strong critique of the current problem or a systematic plan to solve it, I'm as skeeved out as if someone was spouting generalities about patriotism or the motherland. They're cue words meant to manipulate the audience's shared desires, not political solutions.

All in all, however, this whole process is just a periodical farce in which the slaves get to pretend their choosing their masters. The general interests which run the country in almost all aspects of life (we're talking about the bourgeoisie here, kids), will continue to, regardless of who is elected. That said, the poll is messed up and lets you vote a kabillion times.

#1 has it right. I think in 2012, I'll be driving to Iowa to caucus.

if you think about it...

obama has the "majority" of dem votes. although... if he has approximately 45% of the votes, that still means that 55% of democrats want someone else. and 55% is the majority of 100%. big fish, little fish.

know'm sayin?

I like pretty much all of the people running as Democrats, and I hope that they all find a role to play in the new post-2008 political order.

Ideally:

President Edwards
VP Obama
Secretary of State Richardson
Senate Majority Leader Clinton (or Dodd, who would otherwise make a good #2 in the Senate leadership)
Secretary of Defense Biden
HHS Secretary Kucinich, who will be given the task of negotiating with the drug and insurance companies for national health insurance, starting with a single-payer proposal and then working backward to the plan Edwards has been running on.

Oh, and Al Gore should be brought in as a special envoy for environmental diplomacy (or whatever the hell they want to call it), and used as an adviser for national energy and transportation policy. But don't tie him down to a bureaucracy, because then the old Gore might return and he'd be totally useless.

I just can't get behind Hillary. Voters associate her with the status quo for good reason -- she has too often voted along with Bush and the Republicans on important national security and economic issues. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over any of the GOP candidates, but it would be hard to get excited about doing so.

My Iowa and New Hampshire election observations (including predictions), in case you're interested:

http://www.artdish.com/ubbcgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000444

For those of you suffering from Clinton nostalgia, there’s a great piece on AlterNet summing up the Greatest Hits created in the Clinton years that have come to fruition under Bush II: Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell, Welfare “Reform,” NAFTA and other trade policies that are eviscerating the American middle-class, “reform” of banking, lending, media ownership and energy laws that have led to an explosion of illegal and unethical abuses of the American people and our government (I’ll add DOMA to that list as well) and on and on and on.

No more Clintons. Obama/Edwards ’08!

http://www.alternet.org/story/72336/

We need a national "super tuesday" where in we all get to hear the stump speeches in our cafes, parking lots, and libraries and then weed out the losers. Make it 6 months before the national election. Easy, simple, cost effective and to the point.

Kucinich is polling higher than Richardson but Richardson was the only non-front runner in the last debate.

I contacted ABC, maybe you should too?

i really want to love obama, but he never actually says anything. his charisma is great but i don't really get what he is standing for. i really don't agree with his energy plan.

edwards is awesome for rejecting special interest money but he is almost as inexperienced as obama. he has good views on the issues though.

hillary is really alienating for some reason to many people. this is too bad because i think she would be just fine as president.

richardson is still my guy. i agree with him on so many issues. however, i just don't know if he has the type of charisma to really rouse people to vote for him.

sigh. at least the republican pool makes it an obvious choice for november.

oh yeah and the level of governmental control kucinich talks about scares me.

Obama, since President Gore isn't running for re-election.

Looking forward to the Gore/Dodd or Gore/Edwards ticket.

Sen Clinton will make a great US Supreme Court Justice.

And I have to agree with everyone that currently all the leading Dem contenders would all do a good job as President.

@10:
yes Senate majority leader.

She knows all those little slices of policy and programs that are needed to get just 3 more votes here, and 3 more votes there, the way LBJ did in getting the first civil rights act passed back in 1957.
And she loves grinding away at details.

Meanwhile:

Obama Pres
Richardson VP
Biden State
Clark or Powell Defense
Dodd amb. to UN
Lieberman -- amb. to Ct. of St. James for life with a really really big house and servants get the fuck out of the senate you traitor

Gore: stay outside and harass Obama to drop nuclear power

Or Clinton as VP?
If she stops crying?

(wink) Come on, I can dream ... but I'll settle for Obama/Dodd or Obama/Edwards.

@4, we've had two women presidents, both in the last century. Edith Wilson was the first, and then Nancy Reagan.

Here's an interesting thing from the latest NH Dem poll:

"Which Democratic candidate do you think has the right experience to be President?"

Clinton 41%
Obama 16%
Richardson 13%
Edwards 11%

And this is from Jan 5th and 6th. But we're not supposed to care about experience, right? Go Clinton!

So I assume this poll will be like all the other Slog polls, with Edwards running along at 25% or so until the last hour, when he'll get thousands of instant votes and finish at 60%?

@22....and mind you, this is from your link and PDF file.

Three hundred forty-one-nine (341) randomly selected likely New
Hampshire Democratic primary voters were interviewed by telephone between January 5 and 3 p.m. January 6, 2008. The
margin of sampling error is +/- 5%.
Illinois Senator Barack Obama has surged ahead in New Hampshire and now holds a double digit lead over New York
Senator Hillary Clinton. [b]In the latest CNN/WMUR poll, Obama 39% of likely Democratic primary voters, 29% favor
Clinton, 16% favor former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 7% prefer New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, 2%
favor Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, 1% want some other candidate, and 5% say they are still undecided.[/b]

Oh, be fair, Fnarf. Edwards groupies have only skewed the last two of these polls. Before that, Edwards trailed a distant 2nd or 3rd, sorta like Iowa.

@10 -- or, dare I assume the more familiar Mr. Golob:

You are spot on. She's not going to win and the Senate majority leader role would be fantastic. We truly do need to revivify the three branch concept we had as recently as 2000.

Now, a thought. I've been fighting with how to write the following sentiment, and I have decided to just come out with it, knowing I will get flamed by someone:

The Democrats are in love with suicide. Now, this time they damn well may wake up, in the emergency room, stomach pumped just in time, and find themselves in The White House.

But it looks like in this election -- you know, the one following the presidency of the lowest-rated president in history? The one 75% of the country cannot wait to see the back of? The one who, if his party is left in power, will pack the court with the enablers of theocracy? The one who represents a party that even its faithful are beginning to suspect? -- we're going to submit for the approval of the electorate a relatively unknown African-American former coke snorter with the middle name of Hussein.

Dems, you sure do like to play with fire.

That said, I'm going to be working harder for the Dem nominee than I have ever worked before. Walking precincts, manning phone banks and talking up the issues like a wonk-ass wonkity wonk. Good luck and hard work my fellow Dems -- we are sure as hell going to need both.

I am sad if it is true that Hillary's run is soon to be over (as some are starting to day). Even though I am still undecided I was actually looking forward to having her as President. (I like Obama and Edwards too)

With that said, 2 weeks ago things looked different than today. Who knows how things will look after Super Tuesday which is a little less then a month away.

Hillary is a little like Martha Stewart. People love to rip her up one side and down the other but like Martha we feel very protective of her when she is on the ropes or takes a punch.

Brian@30:

I think you were responding to me@28, not Cale@22.

I never said the poll didn't show Obama in the lead. That would be silly of me, since your point has been made ABOUT FIVE MILLION TIMES EVERYWHERE ON EARTH TODAY.

Rather, my point was that even after the Obama bounce, the fine folks of NH still think that Clinton has the best experience to be President, and I believe that if you feel likewise you should vote for her and not the other candidates.

Like Will in Seattle, I'm fine with any of the big three getting the nod. But I still want Clinton to win.

so.... clinton beats obama 41 - 16 on the question of experience, but obama beats hillary by a 10 point margin on the question of who they'd actually vote for.... in the exact same survey.

so how important is experience to the voters? apparently not so much, and unfortunately that's about all she's got [and that's being extremely generous].

I voted three times (by accident) or perhaps I didn't vote at all. I kept wanting the poll to say something like: Thanks for the vote!

Either way, Obama is it. Thank the Lord!!

I'm an Edwards guy: I believe he would be the best for Main Street America as far as the economy, education, and energy policy. But with him now trailing badly in the polls not only in NH, but in SC as well, I can see the writing on the wall for him.

I can live with Obama as a second choice. However, I hope he tones down the kumbaya vibe and brings some brass knuckles to the general election ring against whoever the republicans put up there, cause they'll bring the smear every which way.

Hillary is very qualified to be President and would make a fine one. However, the long term smearing of her by the right wing media as a shrill radical feminist has been so ingrained in the populace that her viability of being elected is slim and none.

@37 But what will ever happen to Obama once the media ends its honeymoon?

@38, It's sort of the point I was making-that honeymoon will probably end around the beginning of the general election campaign, which is when Obama will have to show a much harder edge to deal with republican gangster tactics and and a more skeptical media.

That's a pretty big wager though, and I'm not sure Obama could stand up to tough criticism and smeering anymore than Kerry did. Hillary's already survived it - the mark is there, but I don't see it growing. I'm much more comfortable with someone who knows how to fight the fight than someone who offers platitudes about hope and change, with little to back it up. That's just me though.

I just contributed a $100 to Hillary. I have been one of those people who does like all three of the big three candidates but I think today my heart (and my Visa card) went to Hillary.

Obama is just getting warmed up. Stand back and watch once he's not tip-toeing around all the warring factions withIN the Democratic Party and has the target-rich legacy of Bush/Cheney's energy, war, financial, etc. debacles. If he can keep the DNC handcuffs and mufflers off him (as Al Gore failed to do in 2000--witness how great he sounded AFTER the election), Obama will deliver those details we all crave with his oratory skill and passion.

my vote went to gravel but my second choice is obama
wow...I'm a wierdo
whats it like to be normal?
mentaly?
because i seem perfectly sane to myself...maybe there's a whole nother world of brain chemistry and thought processes out there

@42 - Andy, isn't that an insane proposition? Select me as your candidate, and *then* I'll explain some specifics about what I want to do?

Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton is a nightmare chain of names that must not come to pass. It is a travesty that two families have controlled this country for the past 20 years, and that some people would see that extended to 24 or 28 years. The thought sickens me.

Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Obama? Now we're talking. His name is like a stop-the-madness sign at the end of an hideous, 20-year-long road.

I'm with the much-ballyhooed "youth" on this one. Archie Bunker is rolling in his grave. That's all the validation Obama needs. And get serious. You knew Obama was the man after his performance at the 2004 Dem Convention. Admit it.

Obama is going to win NH today and then keep the momentum rolling to the nomination. And I think he can win over GOPers and independents -- I was just checking out this site called www.fittobepres.com that ranks the candidates and it looks like he has crossover appeal. Check it out!

This sums up why I like take-no-prisoners Edwards:
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/01/political-econo.html

Yup. I'm officially on Barack's bandwagon. I don't agree with everything he says, and that whole ex-gay preacher thing was a major fuck up; but I gotta say he is the best of the bunch...

And besides, how great would it be to have a black pres? Anything that makes the southern racists crazy is fine by me...

Hillary's not going to be Senate Majority Leader until someone is willing to pry Robert Byrd's dessicated corpse out of that chair, and pulls the gavel from his rigor-mortised fist.

@49: SML = Harry Reid, not Byrd

I'm astonished at how simple-minded people are when it comes to Obama. Its telling that his support comes mostly from naive young voters who don't have much experience of what it takes to be an effective Democratic President.

His message of hope is nice, but its not a good strategy for running the country. The Reps will play hardball with his conciliatory approach and his policy inititives will either fail or be buried with loopholes and pork.

I realize Clinton don't stir the soul in the same way as Obama, but we don't need a speechwriter-in-chief - we need a President who can push a liberal agenda and knows how and when to compromise to move it forward. Obama doesn't have the skills to do it. Maybe in 8 years or so, but not yet.

Picking him would be yet another stupid fuck-up by naive, idealistic, impratical, unstrategic, undisciplined liberals.

I still think Sen Clinton will make a great US Supreme Court Justice, when she's appointed to it by President Obama after a thorough vetting by VP Dodd or Edwards.

Having voted this morning, and talked with many friends about Obama, my feeling is that things are definitely going his way today. The turnout really does feel different than it has in the past, and should set a record.

JD -- That's awesome that you voted this morning. Is it pretty crazy up there right now? Also, what do you think of this site Fit to be Pres? If you feel so inclined, I'm trying to get Obama supporters to visit the site and give him a good rating.

@50--D'oh!

That's what I get for posting before coffee.

In that case, I want to see Hillary pry the gavel from Reid's cold, rigor-mortised hands. ASAP.

@51: Simple-mindedness has nothing to do with it. The "Obama lacks experience" angle has no traction. Why? Because look who is in the Oval Office now. Bush is a reviled, incompetent liar but oh the things his administration has accomplished for its (neo)conservative, corporate base. If nothing else, Bush is a living reminder that just about any flunky can hold the job. Obama looks like the love child of Mandela and Einstein by comparison. He's more than capable. He can write his own speeches, yes, and he can pronounce all the words too.

@56 - "If nothing else, Bush is a living reminder that just about any flunky can hold the job. Obama looks like the love child of Mandela and Einstein by comparison."

That's not really your argument *for* Obama, is it?

@57: Of course it isn't. Rather, it's merely a stab at explaining, in part, why the "lack of experience" charge isn't hurting Obama. People have seen far worse.